ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2022
Current Developments in Diagnostic Assays for Laboratory Confirmation and Investigation of Botulism.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology of Foodborne Botulism Outbreaks in Romania, 2007-2024.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Laboratory Diagnostics of Botulism Cases in Livestock in Poland in 2022-2024.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based typing ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Equine botulism.Equine veterinary journal · 2026Review
- The unsung hero:Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Cauda equina nerve root enhancement in adult intestinal toxemia botulism.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Foodborne Botulism Caused byMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Whole genome sequencing of neurotoxin-producingFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Botulism in fish: a review.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024Review
- Foodborne botulism outbreak involving different nationalities during the Rugby World Cup: critical role of credit card data and rapid international cooperation, France, September 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- Clostridial Diseases of Horses: A Review.Vaccines · 2022Review
- Human and animal botulism surveillance in France from 2008 to 2019.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of botulinum neurotoxin or isolation of the toxin-producing organism is required for the laboratory confirmation of botulism in clinical specimens. In an effort to reduce animal testing required by the gold standard method of botulinum neurotoxin detection, the mouse bioassay, many technologies have been developed to detect and characterize the causative agent of botulism. Recent advancements in these technologies have led to improvements in technical performance of diagnostic assays; however, many emerging assays have not been validated for the detection of all serotypes in complex clinical and environmental matrices. Improvements to culture protocols, endopeptidase-based assays, and a variety of immunological and molecular methods have provided laboratories with a variety of testing options to evaluate and incorporate into their testing algorithms. While significant advances have been made to improve these assays, additional work is necessary to evaluate these methods in various clinical matrices and to establish standardized criteria for data analysis and interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.